Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Multiculturalism = Cultural Insensitivity ...

Buncha sorori-chicks and frat boys at Dartmouth College (Alpha Phi sorority and the Phi Delta fraternity) throw a fundraiser (for cardiac care) with a fiesta theme. They called it a "Phiesta."

Phi-esta? Get it?

Planned party fare: virgin Pina Coladas, strawberry daiquiris, chips and salsa, homemade guacamole and burritos. (I'm not a drinker, but the rest of it with a little sweet tea sounds good to me!)

So student Daniela Hernandez, a self described "Mexican-born, United States-raised, first-generation woman of color," pitches a hissy fit about it.

Cultural insensitivity? What hooey. Would I get upset if they had a cracka themed fundraiser with pulled pork barbecue, corn on the cob, baked beans, potato salad, deviled eggs, corn bread, Texas toast and a huge glass of sweet iced tea, followed by a cold, juicy slice of watermelon? Why, no. I'd figure they were getting an educated palate.

See, this is what happens when you encourge "offendedness" over things that don't amount to a hill of refried beans (or blackeye peas, for that matter).

Thanks to taking "diversity" and "multicultural" to wild extremes, this country has become a parody of itself.

What's next on the cultural-sensitivity agenda? Closing down Taco Bell? Guess I'd better go scarf down an order of Nachos Bell Grande, just in case.

17 comments
:

It was amusing that in her spiteful e-mail, Hernandez demonstrates anger and resentment regarding the phenomena of "Americanization". Why then, is she here in America? Good grief, if anything on earth has been "Americanized" , it mostly certainly is America.

Speaking of Patrick Young, he has a brief essay over at the blog site "Long Islnd Wins", and man oh man, does he ever tell some whoppers. In fact, the essay is so propagandistic and dishonest, it is actually reminiscent of the writing style of the old Soviet news gency Tass. Among the ridiculous eye-popping tall-tales Young tells is that France invaded Mexico to "remove democracy", and that Mexico was in solidarity with the Union cause because of its opposition to slavery. Th

The truth, of course, is that the hostilities between France and Mexico originated in Mexico's refusal to honor its financial obligations to France.

The Republic of Mexico declared its neutrality early on in the war. IIRC Texas and the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department were very well supplied and a lot of those supplies came through Mexico and Confederate officials were treated well by Mexican officials. And IIRC Emperor Max had a rather cool, stand-offish attitude toward the Confederates.

Ummm, I have no idea why you say that I "deliberately" failed to mention that when Mexico was a colonial possession of Spain many non-whites were slaves of whites. Independence was in 1821, whereas Cinco de Mayo commemorates a battle four decades later. I did not "fail" to mention it, it was simply not relevant.

Slavery was abolished in Mexico by the Plan of Iguala of 1821. The 1824 Constitution created a constitutional protection against slavery. Mexico was created, in part, to end slavery. Slavery was practiced under Spanish control and abolished as soon as possible by the Mexican upon independence.

1. The link to your essay was from an article published in May of 2014, so the author clearly intended your essay to be read, or re-read, in May of 2014.

2. Your essay was published two, not three years ago. Why do you lie about even this?

3. The fact that Mexico was fighting for its political freedom while practicing slavery is directly and immediately relevant to the discussion. According to you, the Confederates did not deserve political freedom because they held slaves. Accordingly, the Mexicans too, did not deserve freedom.

4. You falsely claim that Mexico supported the Union cause because Mexico opposed slavery. The Union practiced slavery, and therefore the Mexicans, according to you, would have supported neither the CSA nor the USA, as again, the USA practiced slavery just as surely as the CSA did.

5. The French went to Mexico to collect a debt owed to them. You attributed the cause to the ridiculous assertion that they went to "remove democracy". That you borrowed this particular language to use in your article cements the fact that you agree with this assertion, as your essay makes so very clear.

Austin, you wrote: "3. The fact that Mexico was fighting for its political freedom while practicing slavery is directly and immediately relevant to the discussion. According to you, the Confederates did not deserve political freedom because they held slaves. Accordingly, the Mexicans too, did not deserve freedom."

Slavery was part of Spanish law. The Mexican revolutionaries endorsed the Plan of Iguala which would end slavery. The were fighting for independence from Spain. Accordingly, they were fighting to end slavery, not to preserve it. The Confederate Constitution protected slavery, in stark contrast to the Mexican Constitution.

Austin, you wrote: "4. You falsely claim that Mexico supported the Union cause because Mexico opposed slavery. The Union practiced slavery, and therefore the Mexicans, according to you, would have supported neither the CSA nor the USA, as again, the USA practiced slavery just as surely as the CSA did."

I note that that is the contention of David Hayes-Bautista, the author of the thesis. I am not an expert on mid-19th Century Mexican history and would not make that claim.

I think the Bautista thesis is interesting because Cinco de Mayo is often portrayed as a US appropriation of a Mexican holiday, whereas Bautista says it was originally, at least in part, a creation of Latinos living in Mexico.

Austin, you wrote:" 5. The French went to Mexico to collect a debt owed to them. You attributed the cause to the ridiculous assertion that they went to "remove democracy". That you borrowed this particular language to use in your article cements the fact that you agree with this assertion, as your essay makes so very clear."

Ummm, I am quoting you here Austin and that does not mean that I agree with your assertion. Also, no reputable historian believes that the French takeover of Mexico was merely a debt-collection effort.

As I have said elsewhere, I am not an expert on Mexican history and I will leave it to Professor Bautista to defend his thesis.

Patrick,1. The final phase of Mexican Independence began in 1810. No one, absolutely no one, claimed the Mexicans were seeking Independence in order to free the slaves. The idea is preposterous. Additionally, the Mexicans did achieve independence in 1821, yet slavery persisted in Mexico until 1829.again.

2. I think I get it now. The French leadership sat around a big conference table and all decided where the best pace would be to wage a war to " remove democracy" and decided it was Mexico. That might be even more ludicrous than the idea that the Mexicans were fighting to free slaves.

Austin you wrote: "No one, absolutely no one, claimed the Mexicans were seeking Independence in order to free the slaves. The idea is preposterous." The Plan of Igala which embodied the ideals of the Independence movement stated in 1821: "All the inhabitants of New Spain, without any distinction between Europeans, Africans, nor Indians, are citizens". In other words, it would advocate in 1821 what the U.S. only achieved in 1867 with the 14th Amendment. Civil equality of the races was one of the three pillars of Mexican independence.

Wow, even her diatribe doesn't make much sense. She's all over the place, and seems to have a bit of a problem with English, grammar, and coherent thought. What the heck was she offended by....Mexican food? I hope she's happy she stopped the fund raiser. I'm sure her feelings are much more important than medical research that might help people. This is sick, and the university missed an opportunity to straighten this student out.My daughter is being contacted by many schools because of her high test scores. One thing for sure, she will NOT be attending any Ivy League schools.

So now if you are white or some other ethnic group and you eat a food belonging to some other group, that makes you a "racist" in the eyes of some over-sensitive social screw up? Guess I'm a "racist" because I happen to like Chinese food, and soul food too?

What will it finally take? What sort of further silliness and pseudo-intellectualism will America finally have to put it with from the PC crowd? What is finally going to be the moment when this "jumps the shark" and someone just says "enough is enough!"?

Please do not copy, reprint or distribute original content from this blog without the express permission of the owner.~~~~~~~~~~~This blog has no control over and does not necessarily endorse any external Internet site that contains links or references to it.______________

Blogging in the Spirit of Litchenberg

“I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince one’s opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.” – Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Brooks Simpson's Fraudulent "Reviews" of My Novels at Amazon

Update Oct 2016 -- Apparently Simpson is quietly removing Amazon evidence that ties him to these fraudulent reviews. He's even taken down two of the reviews themselves.

Simpson has even manage to review a novel I haven't written yet, on his blog. His comments tell us a lot more about him than they do about me and my book ... for example, he fantasizes about a slave-owner raping slaves.... He fantasizes that the slave Dorsey doesn't have a wife and children because he was "hired out for breeding purposes." Then he mentions someone getting lynched.

Now we see why he has such and interest in slavery and the civil war. To him, they are just sex and violence.

*********************

Notices, Updates & Quickies

More MAGA hat drama...Guy at the Other Forum sez, "The "nasty white boys" have already lawyered up. They'll soon be rich." Another guy sez, "Really? Whom will they sue? And on what grounds? Their school and the local diocese has already said they'll be investigated and disciplined." Various organs of the leftist media, Sherlock, that's who. The people who tried to damage them. The ones who lied about them to the whole flippin' country, who ran with stories that weren't true. I don't care whether they get rich, but it would please me to no end if the settlement involved making the lying media admit their lies, admit their motives, identify both clearly, and apologize to everyone they targeted.
~~~~~~~~~~ Lunatic Leftists Doxed a Random Kid Thinking He Was in the Covington Video — Family Now Receiving Violent Threats This is why leftists are dangerous. I suspect the doxxers don't care whether this was the kid in the video or not. They just want to hurt the "right" people.
~~~~~~~~~~
The leftist mainstream media will not tell the truth about the MAGA hat boys. Just wait and see. They will persecute these boys mercilessly, and a professional Indian activist will make lotsa money from it.
~~~~~~~~~~
David G. at the Other Forum sez, "Again I wonder at the Catholic school 'adults'. Whose idea was it to turn the kids loose in a mob, at a location where the passionate/vocal/angry go to give voice to their issues? And wearing potentially inflammatory MAGA gear?"
David, they weren't "turned loose in a mob. They went where they were told to wait for buses. Follow the link below to Nick Sandmann's statement, if you've got the guts for truth
~~~~~~~~~~
WILL THE HATERS AT THE OTHER FORUM ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG? What a stupid question. Of course not.Statement by Nick Sandmann, the young man in what the the tolerant leftists at the Other Forum called the "nasty little white boys" video. He's an evil kid -- he's white, he's a Christian, he's a Catholic, he's male, and he wore a MAGA hat.
Actually, he sounds much smarter, more mature and tolerant than numerous people who post in that forum, particularly the guy who posted a photo of a kid holding an anti-integration sign from d-e-c-a-d-e-s ago, and conflated him with Nick.
Why do leftists hate so much? Some of them are not going to be happy until white Christian conserv- atives are concentration camped or mowed down with bullets and tanks.
~~~~~~~~~
Somebody at the Other Forum posted, "They were there in the first place to demand male control over a women's body, that a pretty low rung to start with." This was in reference to the slander aimed at some white boys for "harassing" a Native American (which they didn't do). They were students from a Catholic school there to participate in the March for Life. Only in what passes for the mind of a committed leftist is an appeal for the sanctity of life transmuted into "male control over women's bodies." As if there were no women participating in the March for Life.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another look at how the leftist mind deliberately skews and misconstrues:Me:Yes, the destruction of my country, which I love, and have loved since I was old enough to concept- ualize nations, bothers me greatly.Leftist Male: It sounds like you live in a constant state of worry and agitation. What a shame.
See how "bothers me greatly" becomes "constant state of worry and agitation"? I can't believe a reasonably intelligent and educated person could make such a mistake. I can only conclude it is intentional.

This is a personal weblog. The statements expressed here are my personal opinions. Although I believe my perception of the information upon which my opinions are based is correct, accurate and truthful, I make no representations as to accuracy, completeness or validity of any statements on this blog and will not be liable for any errors or omissions, or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. -- Connie Chastain